InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
9th Circuit: Law firm did not violate FCRA by accessing credit report
On March 17, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of a defendant law firm that allegedly accessed a plaintiff’s credit report to obtain her current address after it was hired to collect unpaid homeowner association (HOA) assessments. The plaintiff filed a class action lawsuit claiming, among other things, that the defendant violated the FCRA by accessing her credit report without her consent and that neither the HOA nor the defendant are creditors within the meaning of the FCRA. The district court disagreed, concluding that the HOA was in fact a creditor for purposes of the FCRA. “Under the [a]greement, the HOA determines the assessment amount for a full year and then makes it payable in installments over the course of the year. Thus, it regularly extends credit,” the district court wrote, explaining that because the HOA is a creditor, its attorneys, in collecting on the account, have the right to review a consumer’s credit report without consent. Moreover, the district court determined that the defendant had established the requisite “direct link” between the credit transaction and its request for the plaintiff’s credit report.
The 9th Circuit concluded that the “[d]efendant’s reading of the statute was not objectively unreasonable” because the plaintiff “had a grace period during which she could receive half a month’s services that she had not yet paid for,” which “could be considered an extension of credit.” While concurring with the panel, one of the judges commented, however, that “[i]t is hard to imagine that Congress intended FCRA, a statute that protects consumer privacy, to empower HOAs composed of neighboring homeowners to run their neighbors’ credit reports if homeowners fall two weeks behind in their payments.” The judge recommended that the appellate court “revisit the issue,” noting that it is unclear under current case law whether an HOA assessment qualifies as a “credit transaction” under the FCRA.
CFPB updates card survey to improve comparison shopping
On March 21, the CFPB announced updates to its terms of credit card plans (TCCP) survey. The updates are intended to “create a neutral data source” to help consumers comparison shop for credit cards and “find the best interest rates and products,” the Bureau explained. Previously, credit card data was compiled and made publicly available from the largest 25 issuers, as well as from a sample of at least 125 other issuers (as required by the Fair Credit and Charge Chard Disclosure Act of 1988). The refreshed TCCP survey will now allow issuers to voluntarily submit information about their credit card products to enable smaller credit card issuers to reach comparison shoppers and compete with bigger players. The TCCP survey will also include additional questions about credit card annual percentage rates, and will require issuers to report the minimum and maximum APR offered if it varies by credit score. According to the Bureau, allowing consumers to see the median APR for their credit score range will help them better compare products and estimate the potential cost of borrowing before applying. Additionally, the top 25 credit card issuers will have to provide information on all their credit cards instead of just their most popular products. Other issuers will be permitted to voluntarily submit information on multiple products. Expanded information reporting requirements include providing details on whether a product is a secured card or if it requires a deposit to open an account, as well as information about promotional terms of balance transfers, introductory rates, and cash advances.
HUD restores 2013 discriminatory effects rule
On March 17, HUD announced the submission of a final rule—Reinstatement of HUD’s Discriminatory Effects Standard—which would rescind the agency’s 2020 regulation governing Fair Housing Act (FHA or the Act) disparate impact claims and reinstate the agency’s 2013 discriminatory effects rule. Explaining that “the 2013 rule is more consistent with how the [FHA] has been applied in the courts and in front of the agency for more than 50 years,” HUD emphasized that it also “more effectively implements the Act’s broad remedial purpose of eliminating unnecessary discriminatory practices from the housing market.”
As previously covered by InfoBytes, in 2021, HUD proposed rescinding the 2020 rule, which was intended to align the 2013 rule with the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2015 ruling in Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, Inc. The 2020 rule included, among other things, a modification of the three-step burden-shifting framework in its 2013 rule, several new elements that plaintiffs must show to establish that a policy or practice has a “discriminatory effect,” and specific defenses that defendants can assert to refute disparate impact claims. According to HUD’s recent announcement, the modifications contained within the 2020 rule complicated the discriminatory effects framework, created challenges for establishing whether a policy violates the FHA, and made it harder for entities regulated by the Act to assess whether their policies were lawful.
The final rule is effective 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. According to HUD, the 2020 rule never went into effect due to a preliminary injunction issued by the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, and the 2013 rule has been and currently is in effect. Regulated entities that have been complying with the 2013 rule will not need to change any practices currently in place to comply with the final rule, HUD said.
FFIEC releases 2022 HMDA data
On March 20, the CFPB announced the release of the 2022 HMDA modified loan application register (LAR) data. The LAR data, available on the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council’s HMDA platform, contains modified loan-level information on approximately 4,394 HMDA filers. The Bureau also announced plans to produce the 2022 HMDA data “in other forms to provide users insights into the data,” including through a nationwide loan-level dataset, which will provide all publicly available data from all HMDA reporters, as well as aggregate and disclosure reports with summary information by geography and lender, to allow users the ability to create custom datasets and reports. The Bureau also said it plans to publish a Data Point article highlighting key trends in the annual HMDA data.
District Court: Failure to investigate duplicate reporting dispute could violate the FCRA
On March 10, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois ruled a defendant credit union failed to properly report an individual’s debt to a consumer reporting agency or investigate his dispute. Plaintiff obtained a credit card from the defendant but fell behind on his payments. After his account was later sent to a third-party collection agency, the plaintiff obtained a copy of his credit report where he noticed that his credit card debt was listed twice—once as a “individual” and “revolving” account with a balance of $10,145, and another time as an “open” collections account with a different balance. Plaintiff sent identical dispute letters to the three major credit reporting agencies (CRAs), acknowledging the delinquent credit card but expressing confusion as to why the account was listed twice. He submitted additional similar disputes with the CRAs, claiming that the error caused him to be denied the opportunity to rent an apartment and made it difficult for him to obtain a mortgage. During discovery, two corporate witnesses testified on behalf of the defendant—one of whom is responsible for reviewing consumer credit disputes and verified the information being reported was accurate. A second witness also testified that while the defendant understood that the plaintiff was alleging inaccuracies due to the debt being reported twice, it chose to focus its investigation on verifying that the information in the plaintiff’s credit report matched the information in its internal system.
In denying the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, the court noted that while the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit “has not decided whether double-reporting of a single debt on a credit report is an FCRA violation, district courts across the country have found that whether the practice is misleading and violates the FCRA is an issue of fact.” The court explained that an issue of fact exists as to whether double reporting the debt created a misleading impression that the plaintiff has two separate debts totaling $22,000 rather than a single debt of roughly $10,000. Moreover, even though the plaintiff’s dispute contained the message “duplicate,” the defendant did not address this issue nor did it request that a change be made to the plaintiff’s credit report. “A jury could reasonably conclude [] that [defendant’s] investigation was inadequate under the FCRA,” the court wrote. “[W]hether [defendant’s] investigation or protocol may qualify as a willful violation giving rise to statutory or punitive damages is an issue for a jury as well.”
DOJ, CFPB: Lenders that rely on discriminatory appraisals violate the FHA and ECOA
On March 13, the DOJ and CFPB filed a statement of interest saying that a “lender violates both the [Fair Housing Act (FHA)] and ECOA if it relies on an appraisal that it knows or should know to be discriminatory.” (See also CFPB blog post here.) Pointing out that the case raises important legal questions regarding the issue of appraisal bias, the agencies explained that the DOJ has enforcement authority under both the FHA and ECOA, and the Bureau has authority to interpret and issue rules under ECOA and enforce the statute’s requirements.
The case, which is currently pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, concerns whether an appraiser, a real estate appraisal company, and an online mortgage lender (collectively, “defendants”) violated federal and state law by undervaluing plaintiffs’ home on the basis of race and denying a mortgage refinancing application based on the appraisal. Plaintiffs, who are Black, claimed their home was appraised for a lower amount on the basis of race, and maintained that the lender denied their loan even after being told the appraisal was discriminatory. Additionally, plaintiffs claimed that after they replaced family photos with pictures of white people and had a white colleague meet a new appraiser, that appraiser appraised the house for $750,000—a nearly 60 percent increase despite there not being any significant improvements made to the house or meaningful appreciation in the value of comparable homes in the market.
The defendant appraiser filed a counterclaim against the plaintiffs providing technical arguments for why he valued the home at $472,000, including that the property next door was listed for $500,000, but was later reduced to $475,000, only 10 days after he completed the appraisal. He further claimed that the second appraisal failed to include that property as a comparison and relied on home sales that had not happened as of the time of the first appraisal. The lender argued that it should not be held liable because it was relying on a third-party appraiser and that “it can be liable only if it took discriminatory actions that were entirely separate from [the appraiser’s].”
While the statement does not address the issue of vicarious liability, the DOJ and CFPB asserted that lenders can be held liable under the FHA and ECOA for relying on discriminatory appraisals. They explained that it is “well-established that a lender is liable if it relies on an appraisal that it knows or should know to be discriminatory.” The statement also provided that for disparate treatment claims under the FHA and ECOA, “plaintiffs need only plead facts that plausibly allege discriminatory intent.” The agencies also argued that a violation of Section 3617 of the FHA (which includes “a prohibition against retaliating in response to the exercise of fair housing rights”) “does not require a ‘predicate violation’ of the FHA.
FHFA delays effective date of DTI ratio-based fee
On March 15, FHFA delayed the implementation of a new debt-to-income ratio-based fee to August 1, in order to ensure lenders have sufficient time to prepare. In January, FHFA made several changes relating to upfront fees for certain borrowers with debt-to-income (DTI) ratios above 40 percent. The updated and recalibrated pricing grids also include the upfront fee eliminations announced last October to increase pricing support for purchase borrowers limited by income or by wealth, FHFA said. The agency made the decision to delay the effective date by three months based on feedback from mortgage industry stakeholders who raised concerns about the operational challenges of implementing the DTI ratio-based fee. FHFA also confirmed that “lenders will not be subject to post-purchase price adjustments related to this DTI ratio-based fee for loans acquired by [Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac] between August 1, 2023, and December 31, 2023.” The agency explained that this temporary exception “will not alter any other quality control review decisions by [Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac].”
CFPB scrutinizes discharged private student loan billing and collection practices
On March 16, the CFPB released a compliance bulletin discussing student loan servicers’ practice of collecting on private student loans discharged in bankruptcy. The bulletin also notified regulated entities on how the Bureau intends to exercise its enforcement and supervisory authorities on this issue. Bulletin 2023-01: Unfair Billing and Collection Practices After Bankruptcy Discharges of Certain Student Loan Debts addressed the treatment of certain private student loans following bankruptcy discharge. The Bureau explained that in order to secure a discharge of a qualified education loan in bankruptcy, a borrower must demonstrate that the loan would impose an undue hardship if not discharged. Loans that do not meet this qualification (“non-qualified student loans”) can be discharged under standard bankruptcy discharge orders, the Bureau said.
Bureau examiners found, however, that several servicers failed to determine whether a borrower’s loan was qualified or non-qualified. As a result, non-qualified student loans were returned to repayment after a bankruptcy concluded, wherein servicers continued to bill and collect payments on the loans even through the borrower was released from this debt through the bankruptcy discharge. According to the Bureau, many borrowers, when faced with collection activities in violation of a bankruptcy court order, continued to make payments on debts they no longer owed.
The Bureau explained that servicers who collected on student loans that were discharged by a bankruptcy court violate the prohibition on unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices under the Consumer Financial Protection Act. The bulletin described unfair practices observed by examiners, such as servicers relying entirely on loan holders to distinguish among the loans and not ensuring that such holders had in fact done so. The bulletin also provided examples of student loans that are eligible for standard bankruptcy discharge, including loans made to students attending schools that are ineligible for federal student aid and loans made to students attending school less than half time. Bureau examiners instructed servicers to immediately stop collecting on discharged loans and take remedial action, including conducting a multi-year lookback and issuing refunds to affected borrowers.
CFPB issues 2023 HMDA institutional and transactional coverage charts
On March 15, the CFPB released the 2023 HMDA institutional and transactional coverage charts. The charts update the reporting thresholds for transactions that involve a closed-end mortgage loan, pursuant to an order issued last September by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in National Community Reinvestment Coalition v. CFPB. (Covered by InfoBytes here.) As previously covered by InfoBytes, in 2020 the CFPB issued a final rule, which amended Regulation C and permanently increased the reporting threshold from the origination of at least 25 closed-end mortgage loans in each of the two preceding calendar years to 100, and permanently increased the threshold for collecting and reporting data about open-end lines of credit from the origination of 100 lines of credit in each of the two preceding calendar years to 200.
The 2023 HMDA Institutional Coverage Chart outlines criteria for determining whether an institution is covered by Regulation C. Additionally, the 2023 HMDA Transactional Coverage Chart explains that under HMDA/Regulation C, a transaction is reportable only if it is an application for, an origination of, or a purchase of a covered loan. The chart explains how to determine whether a transaction involves a covered loan and whether it meets the applicable loan-volume thresholds.
CFPB seeks input on data broker businesses
On March 15, the CFPB issued a Request for Information (RFI) seeking public input on data broker business practices in order to inform planned rulemaking under the FCRA and help the agency understand the current state of the industry. “Modern data surveillance practices have allowed companies to hover over our digital lives and monetize our most sensitive data,” CFPB Director Rohit Chopra said in the announcement. He added, “[o]ur inquiry will inform whether rules under the [FCRA] reflect these market realities.” The Bureau explained that the FCRA—which covers data brokers such as credit reporting companies and background screening firms, as well as parties who report information to these firms—provides several protections, including accuracy standards, dispute rights, and restrictions on how data can be used. The RFI seeks feedback on business models and practices used by the data broker market, including information about the types of data being collected and sold and the sources data brokers rely upon. In particular, the Bureau seeks information on consumer harm and market abuses, and wants to understand “whether companies using these new business models are covered by the FCRA, given the FCRA’s broad definitions of ‘consumer report’ and ‘consumer reporting agency.’” The Bureau stated it is also interested in learning about consumers’ direct experiences with data brokers, including when consumers try to remove, correct, or regain control of their data. Comments on the RFI are due by June 13.